1 902-wp-8827-2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8827 OF 2023 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd Through Its Nodal Officer VERSUS M/s Bharati Telesonic Ltd ... Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. V. D. Khivesara and Mr. A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. R. M. Gaikwad and Mr. R. R. Kazi, Advocate for Respondent (Thr. V.C.) ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- . Feeling aggrieved by the decision and order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (“CGRF” for brevity) in case No.CGRF/A’bad/1109/2023/05, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (“MSEDCL” for brevity) has preferred this petition. 2. The petitioner/MSEDCL is a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and is owned by the Government of Maharashtra. The respondent is a business entity involved in the activities of telecommunication sector, particularly in the 2026:BHC-AUG:42822 2 902-wp-8827-2023 installation and operation of mobile towers for providing mobile and internet services to the public. 3. On 28.02.2009, the respondent applied to the petitioner for electricity connection for its utilization at its site located at Hotel Nagarjuna, Airport Road, Nanded. The application in prescribed format was submitted by the respondent/Bharti Telesonic Ltd. (“Airtel” for brevity). Clause no.6 of the prescribed application form required the prospective consumer to specify whether the electricity connection was sought for domestic or business purpose. Suffice to note, there were only two categories specified in the application form. The respondent/Airtel, in its application sought the electricity connection for business purpose. 4. Consequent to the application and after completion of the formalities, the electricity connection was sanctioned and provided to the respondent/Airtel. For some period Airtel was charged at the commercial tariff, whereas for certain period, the tariff applicable to industrial usage was levied. Suffice to note, there is difference between the tariffs applicable to industrial and commercial usage. The controversy between the 3 902-wp-8827-2023 parties arose when the petitioner/MSEDCL charged Airtel at the commercial tariff for the same electricity connection, although for an earlier period, the tariff applicable to industrial usage had been levied. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the levy of the commercial tariff, Airtel approached the CGRF, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The forum heard both the parties and allowed the complaint filed by the respondent/Airtel. The tariff applied at commercial usage was struck-down. The MSEDCL was directed to adjust the amount paid excess by Airtel for the usage of the electricity. 6. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the MSEDCL has filed present petition. 7. During the course of hearing, Mr. V. D. Sapkal, learned Senior Advocate i/b Mr. A. S. Bajaj, learned Advocate for the petitioner pointed out a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nirgam Limited Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, 2024 DGLS (Bom.) 1432. He would submit that the reasons recorded by the CGRF particularly its finding 4 902-wp-8827-2023 that the activities of Airtel constitute an industrial activity cannot be made applicable for the present purpose. He would submit that the CGRF has referred to the Income Tax Act and has applied those provisions while deciding the complaint. Pointing out the judgment delivered by this Court in the BSNL case supra Mr. Sapkal, learned Senior Advocate submits that this Court has clarified that the provisions under the Income Tax Act could not be invoked for the purpose of present controversy. 8. Then, Mr. Sapkal submits that the CGRF has not at all considered the photographs produced by the MSEDCL to demonstrate that the activity conducted by the Airtel at the subject matter/site was in fact shows that it was a commercial activity. The wholesome objection of Mr. Sapkal is that the respondent Airtel was operating a telephone exchange at the site and hence since it was a revenue generating activity, the MSEDCL was justified in charging the tariff applied for the commercial usage. 9. Mr. R. M. Gaikwad, learned Advocate for respondent/ Airtel advocates the reasoning rendered by the CGRF. He 5 902-wp-8827-2023 would submit that in fact the MSEDCL never conducted physical inspection of the site. What was done was only on visit by an Officer of the MSEDCL who purportedly prepared a report of inspection and recorded that a commercial activity or commercial usage was in operation at the subject matter site. He would submit that the application which was given by the MSEDCL to the consumers while securing a connection prescribes only two types of usages; (i) Domestic and (ii) Business. He submits that it ought to have been further classification as to industrial or commercial usage. He submits that the MSEDCL cannot take benefit of its own wrong. 10. It is another contention of learned Advocate for respondent/Airtel that the petitioner/MSEDL could not establish that any independent revenue generating activity was being carrying out by Airtel through the use of the said unit at the subject matter-site. He would submit that, having regard to the actual activity carried out by the respondent/Airtel, the unit installed at the site can only be regarded as a unit or instrument ancillary to the mobile towers. He submits that admittedly, no mobile tower was installed at the subject site and that the unit installed therein 6 902-wp-8827-2023 is a REG Servers, which merely receives signals from one tower and transmits them to another tower. He submits that as such the unit by itself does not carry out any independent activity and hence it is rightly termed by the CGRF as an instrument or ancilliary unit of the mobile towers. Operation of such unit is covered under industrial activity. He further submits that MSEDCL could not establish that the unit was a ‘Telephone Exchange’. With this, Mr. R. M. Gaikwad, learned Advocate submits that the Writ Petition be dismissed. 11. During the course of hearing, it appears that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench was not brought to the notice of the CGRF. Secondly, the contention of respondent/Airtel as regards to the contents in the electricity connection application are also not discussed by the CGRF. Thirdly, the issue as to whether the petitioner/MSEDCL was required to establish that the REG unit was generating revenue, and if so, whether such activity would constitute a commercial activity of the respondent/Airtel is required to be proved before the CGRF. Although the complaint is allowed by the CGRF, the basic objections of the MSEDCL as regards to the commercial usage needs to the elaborately discussed by 7 902-wp-8827-2023 the CGRF. In view of this, I deem it appropriate to relegate the matter to the CGRF. In view of the issues to be agitated by the parties as observed supra, I pass following order: ORDER a. Writ Petition stands disposed of. b. The matter is relegated to the CGRF for fresh disposal. c. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. d. Suffice to note, this Court has not commented on merits of either party. The issues referred are on the basis of contentions of the parties. e. Both the parties candidly agree to appear before the CGRF on 05.10.2026. It is agreed that no separate notice is needed for that purpose. f. After appearance of both the parties, the CGRF is requested to conclude its hearing within a period of three months. g. It is requested to the CGRF to issue appropriate directions if required to the MSEDCL for directing official disconnection at the site and for issuing appropriate bill in the light of that discontinuation. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) Rushikesh/2026